Moreno v. Quemuel
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Deputy sheriff Rowell San‑Luis Quemuel activated patrol lights for a one‑way violation and pursued a motorist on Sunset Boulevard.
- The motorist pulled over; Quemuel stopped, opened his driver‑side patrol‑car door to exit and contact the motorist.
- Motorcyclist Mark C. Moreno collided with the open car door and sued Quemuel for negligence and negligence per se (alleging Vehicle Code §22517 violation).
- Quemuel moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under Vehicle Code §17004 (immunity for operation of an authorized emergency vehicle while "in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator").
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Quemuel; Moreno appealed.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether opening a patrol‑car door as a precursor to exiting during a traffic stop qualifies as being "in immediate pursuit" under §17004.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §17004 immunity applies when an officer opens a patrol‑car door during a traffic stop | Moreno: "Pursuit" requires a chase or at least two vehicles in motion; no pursuit once the motorist pulled over, so immunity does not apply | Quemuel: Opening the door to exit and make contact is part of pursuit in a broader sense and falls within §17004 immunity | Court: "Pursuit" can be broadly construed; opening the door as precursor to exiting during a stop is within §17004 immunity |
| Whether extrinsic agency reports should control statutory meaning | Moreno: Supervisor incident report concluded no pursuit; should be considered | Quemuel: Department report is not an administrative construction of §17004 and is not entitled to deference | Court: Declined to rely on the report; no deference because the department does not administer §17004 |
| Whether California should follow out‑of‑state decisions limiting "pursuit" to moving chases | Moreno: Cites Schreyer, Torres, Fogg to support narrow definition | Quemuel: Those cases are distinguishable by statute and facts; California statutory scheme and policy support broader construction | Court: Distinguished those cases and adopted a broader, commonsense meaning consistent with California law and policy |
| Whether public policy favors limiting immunity (safety vs. accountability) | Moreno: Narrow rule protects third parties like motorcyclists | Quemuel: Broader immunity allows officers to focus on safety and the stopped motorist; public entity liability under §17001 preserves accountability | Court: Balanced policy favors immunity for officer actions during stops while preserving remedy against public entities under §17001 |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, 24 Cal.4th 317 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Goodman v. Lozano, 47 Cal.4th 1327 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Brummett v. County of Sacramento, 21 Cal.3d 880 (discussed historical treatment of "pursuit")
- Cruz v. Briseno, 22 Cal.4th 568 (§17004 applies to routine traffic stops; immunity limited as provided)
- Schreyer v. Chaplain, 416 Md. 94 (Md. 2010) (majority held no immunity absent moving vehicular chase; discussed and distinguished)
- Torres v. City of Perth Amboy, 748 A.2d 125 (N.J. 2000) (addressed immunity tied to fleeing/escaped persons; distinguished)
- Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271 (Colo. 1995) (distinguished; did not interpret "pursuit")